22 90. On January 15, 2013, Mr. Rojas sought constitutional relief via amparo alleging that judgment of conviction 914-2009 was not provided to him in written form and, therefore, he was unable to appeal all of the flaws appearing therein. He reiterated that it was only provided to him in DVD form and that he was unable to view it at the CAI La Reforma prison facilities inasmuch as the hardware required for this purpose is not available. He further claimed that the judgment became a final settled matter of law despite the multiple irregularities by which it was flawed.108 2.2. Relief sought by Mr. Rojas Madrigal outside of the criminal proceedings 91. On January 30, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber outright rejected a petition for habeas corpus relief filed on January 6, 2008 by Mr. Rojas Madrigal against the Legislative Assembly, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Third Chamber on the grounds that i) they did not include in domestic law an appeals remedy pursuant to Article 8.2.h of the American Convention; and ii) Law No. 8503 did not abide by the order issued by the Inter-American Court in the judgment of the Herrera Ulloa case.109 92. On May 4, 2011, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice received a petition for habeas corpus relief brought by Mr. Rojas.110 Therein, Mr. Rojas sought definition of the scope of Law No. 8837 inasmuch as said he claimed statute does not explain the status of persons convicted prior to the time it came into force. He argued that the law does not establish how persons previously convicted will be redressed for violation of their right to review of judgment as provided for in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention. He also contended that the Article regulating the procedure for the motion for review of conviction does not ensure, based on the valid grounds listed therein, a thorough examination of the judgment of conviction. 93. On June 6, 2012, Mr. Rojas moved for a disciplinary proceeding to be instituted against the justices of the Third Chamber because their decisions were at odds with the legal precedents of the new Court of Appeals.111 2.3. CAI La Reforma prison facilities 94. On June 26, 2006, Mr. Rojas filed a grievance (recurso de queja) with the Sentence Execution Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela.112 He argued that in 2002 he was relocated to the CAI La Reforma prison; that the following year he was diagnosed with diabetes and he was not provided treatment despite fainting, dizzy spells and headaches.113 He also claimed that he was found to have an 108 Annex 49. Submission of motion for amparo, dated January 15, 2013. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 109 Annex 50. Decision No. 2009-001350 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated January 30, 2009. Annex to petitioner’s communication of July 7, 2009. 110 Annex 51. Submission by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated April 2, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 111 Annex 52. Submission of Mr. Rojas Madrigal, dated June 6, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 112 Annex 53. Submission of the grievance by Mr. Rojas Madrigal, dated June 26, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 5, 2006. 113 Annex 53. Submission of the grievance by Mr. Rojas Madrigal, dated June 26, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 5, 2006.